Comment by Avamander
4 years ago
> Would it be okay to try and prove the vulnerability of a country's water supply by intentionally introducing a "harmless" chemical into the treatment works, without the consent of the works owners?
The question should also be due to who's neglect they gained access to the "water supply". If you also truly want to make this comparison.
The question is also: "Will this research have benefits?" If the conclusion is "well, you can get access to the water supply and the only means to prevent it is to closely guard every brook, lake and river, needing half the population as guards". Well, then it is useless. And taking risks for useless research is unethical, no matter how minor those risks might be.
> If the conclusion is "well, you can get access to the water supply and the only means to prevent it is to closely guard every brook, lake and river, needing half the population as guards".
I don't think that was the conclusion.
And what was? I cannot find constructive criticism in the related paper or any of your comments.